Makhloufi destroying workouts

Metric Miler wrote:

Mumford and Daughters wrote:

1) I think that the 'whole group' Renato is talking about here is in fact a very small group. His definition of 'top Kenyan' seems somewhat different to many other peoples.

It seems somewhat logical to me that there would be an upper limit for certain parameters and it seems his opinion is that limit has been reached through other conditions (living in altitude with 'correct' training.)

2) It seems that it is irrelevant that they are Kenyan - and it is more the fact that this group of Kenyans meet the other conditions necessary. IE it would be possible for another Nationality to meet the same criteria under the same circumstances??

As for your final point I think that that is exactly what Renato is requesting...

Correct, it is irrelevant they are Kenyans. There is nothing different about Kenyans. And EPO worked on extremely highly trained elite cyclists who were adapted to altitude with unbelievable blood levels.

So I ask Renato, what does he feel is different about Kenyans for PEDs to not affect them? Maybe he could explain the physiological pathways that make this possible?

Renato Canova wrote:

In the history of methodology we can see several eras , characterized by differences in the training philosophy and in the choice of the most important workouts for that period. In some of these periods, there was also some history of doping, since always the athletes tried to find some pharmac able to help the body to become stronger, faster, and more resistant.

Also if the modern methodology is based on more scientific data and ideas, in some case what was the “basic and natural training” still can be considered the “main dish” of the preparation.

We can’t say, for example, that the modern training methodology for 400m changed the history of the event, when 56 years ago, during the OG in Rome, running on a dirty track, with 4 different rounds and without resting days, two athletes (Karl Kaufmann of West Germany and Otis Davis of US) arriving with the same time (44”9) who is still valid for reaching the final in every top championship.

We can’t also say the modern preparation for Long Jump can give advantages to the athletes, if (apart Beamon in Mexico City) in 1960 Ralph Boston won with 8.12 on a board of earth, and with the same performance could win the bronze medal in OG 2012 in London.

Looking at the endurance events, we can say that shorter the event, less room of improvement finding something new in training. But, for longer events, we can say very consistant improvements, and this fact is due to three factors :

a) Change of training

b) Change of mentality

c) Change of organization in the races

About training, we can identify some fundamental period, when some coach put something different from other coaches in his training :

a) The interval – training, invented by the German Coach and Doctor Gerschel and Reindel in the late 1930, based on the work of the heart

b) The Fartlek, developed by Swedish and Finnish, that means “running game”

c) The period of long and easy run, based on the concept of “capillarization”, following Van Aaken

d) The period of Marathon Training (1955-1970), from Percy Cerutty and Arthur Lydiard

e) The period of development of mileage (1970-80), with peaks of more than 200 miles per week

f) The period of high intensity and medium mileage (1980-1990), using also for longer distances repetitions with very short recovery

g) The period of high intensity with high mileage and the use of long repetitions on track (1990-2010), system developed with top African runners

h) At the same time, in Europe and America, the period with high intensity and drastic reduction of mileage (when we were no more able to produce any good runner, and in Europe we are still paying this mentality)

i) Now, the period of high mileage with frequent long and fast runs, that is the reason of the improvement in Marathon-

About mentality, we can say that, when some athlete is able to go under some mythical barrier (for example, 4’ for mile, 3’30” for 1500m, 13’ and 27’ for 5000 and 10000, 1 hour in HM and 2:05’ in full marathon), it’s easier for the other to have a different vision about the personal limits. This is directly connected with the third factor :

Different organization of the races, during the period 1995-2005 on the track, now on road races (specifically the use of pacers, previously not allowed, in order to try records or top performances).

What we can do in training different from the past ?

1) We use now, with African runners, long intervals on track at high intensity (for example, 4 times 3000m in 8’10” running during the recovery 6 times 60m sprint uphill at max speed), and fast long continuous run very fast (from 8 to 15 km when preparing 10000m, from 25 to 35 km when preparing Marathon) that 30 years ago nobody used.

2) We use high volume of specific intensity, with different percentage of “specific mileage” compared with the past, when the percentage of easy run was very much higher, and the percentage of “specific long fast run” was very much lower

So, there are big differences between the training of the athletes of today, and the training of the athletes of 30 years ago, but of course, if some coach continues to use the same old system, there is no reason because the performances of the athletes can improve from the past.

We can say that the big changes were in longest distances, and the last changes in Marathon only. Nothing really changed in the preparation for track events after 2005, and in this case we can say that the main reason is the migration of the most part of talented athletes of endurance from track to road races, and at the same time the reduction of competitions of high level on track (10000m practically disappeared, 5000m in the DL only more, and globally 28 meetings cancelled in Europe during the last 3 years).

Here, you can see the improvement of WR every 10 years, starting from 1970, and the percentage of improvement :

800m 1500m 5000m 10000m

1970 : ………….1’44”3…………………………….3’33”1…………………………13’16”6…………………… 27’39”4

1980 : 1’42”4 (-1”9=1.82%)….3’31”36 (1”74=0.81%)…13’08”4 (8”2=1%)……………..27’22”5 (16”9=1.02%)

1990 : 1’41”73 (0”67=0.65%)…3’29”46 (1”90=0.90%)..12’58”39 (10”01=1,27%)….27’08”23 (14”27=0.87%)

2000 : 1’41”11 (0”62=0.61%)…3’26”00 (3”46=1.68%)..12’39”36 (20”03=2.57%)….26’22”75 (45”48=2.79%)

2010 : 1’40”92 (0”19=0.19%)…3’26”00 (-------)………….12’37”35 (2”11=0.28%)…….26’17”53(5”22=0.33%)

2015 : 1’40”92 (-----)…………….3’26”00 (-------)…………. 12’37”35 (---------)…………….26’17”35 (---------)

1970 : ………………8’21”98…………………………………..1:03’53”…………………………2:09’29”

1980 : 8’05”4 (16”6 = 3.30%)……………1:02’16” (1’37” = 2.53%)………….2:09’01” (28” = 0.36%)

1990 : 8’05”35 (0”05 = 0.01%)………….1:00’55” (1’21” = 2.17%)…………2:06’50” (2’11” = 1.69%)

2000 : 7’55”72 (9”63 = 1.98%)……………..59’17” (1’38” = 2.68%)………..2:05’42” (1’08” = 0.89%)

2010 : 7’53”63 (2”09 = 0.44%)…………….58’23” (54” = 1.52%)………….2:03’59” (1’43” = 1.36%)

2015 : 7’53”63 (----------)……………………..58’23” (--------------)……………2:02’57” (1’02” = 0.83%)

I let everybody interpret these numbers, but one thing it’s clear : the improvement in longer distances is very much more deep than in shorter distances, and this because the possibility to change something in training is more available in the sector of long endurance than in the sector of middle distances.

If we look at the total improvement in the full period of 45 years, we have the following data :

800m (from 1’44”3 to 1’40”91) - improvement of 3”39 (3.25%)

1500m (from 3’33”1 to 3’26”00) - improvement of 7”10 (3.33%)

5000m (from 13’16”6 to 12’37”35) - improvement of 39”25 (4.28%)

10000m (from 27’39”4 to 26’17”53) - improvement of 1’21”87 (4.93%)

Steeple (from 8’21”98 to 7’53”63) - improvement of 28”35 (5.65%)

HM (from 1:03’53” to 58’23”) - improvement of 5’30” (8.61%)

Marathon (from 2:09’29” to 2:02’57”) - improvement of 6’32” (5.04%)

If we don’t consider HM (event that found the opportunity to be frequently organized only after 2000), we can see that the percentage of improvement in marathon is not very different from the improvement in 10000, while 800m and 1500m are similar as trend. The difference is that the most part of improvement for 800 and 1500m happened before 2000, while for marathon the last years are the most prolific.

‘When Mo came to me 18 months ago, he was a skinny distance runner with a great engine but no upper body. At the end of races, he would tire and his head would bob around and his arms would flail.

‘He was the weakest athlete I’d ever trained — in terms of core strength and being able to do push-ups, sit-ups and single-leg squats. He was a 90lb weakling.

‘The No 1 thing that has helped Mo is not the 110 miles a week he puts in on the road, but the seven hours a fortnight in the gym.’

Recordbook wrote:Ventolin, your schtick is getting old.

At 6 feet plus and 120 lbs Kiprop is never going to get off the line as fast guys like Amos

so the jogging start you are talking about is really just what Kiproip is

Kiprop is never any wider than outside of lane 1 on any of the turns in

that race

he was not respected enough to get inner part of lane when having to share !

He might be as wide as outside of lane 2 on some of the straightaways but has clear path the whole trip

Kiprop goes out in a relaxed

but honest 25.x through 200 and hits 400 in approx 50.5 (rabbit went through in 49.9)

He takes the lead with 200 to go and has to work to hold off Amos until the last 15 meters pulling up only slightly in the last two or three strides

In other posts you scream and shout about Rudisha's suicidal 23.x first 200 and lack of rabbit for windbreak in London 2012

In this race, Kiprop goes out smoothly

gets some drafting advantage

and gets the lead exactly when you want it for unimpeded running

Kiprop's "celebration" might have cost him two tenths of a second maybe

Add another very speculative three tenths for two yards lost on slightly wide turns and straightaway manuevering and you have half a second total or 1:42.85

(Personally I don't think Kiprop could have gone anymore than a tenth or two faster on the day.)

Regardless, Kiprop is in reality a 1:43 flat 800 man which is pretty incredible in its own right given his build

jjjjjjj wrote:you claim to have watched everything on satellite, yet you don't know that the circuit was professionalized in the early 1980s? In 1981, Coe forced major rules changes that essentially made the athletes professionals and he was already getting $10,000 appearance fees or more for meets, as I linked in a previous thread about Firenze. There was a lot of money in the 1980s on the circuit, but it was the EPO years that brought enormous drops in the distances. Marathon timeframes differ in part because of money and far wider availability of lucrative races but also because of the lack of doping controls until recent years. As far as African drug testing goes, we already know about the lack of in-country tests in Kenya, Ethiopia, and others, as well as the rampant corruption and covering up of positive tests on the national and IAAF level in exchange for bribes, but the latest story is that the lab where the African tests for WADA have been sent has been de-certified until (conveniently) after the Olympics. South Africa's lab was where most African nations sent their tests. Well, the lab was not qualified to do them and they'll have to be sent to other continents now. (Good luck with the samples being stored under proper conditions in going from, say, El Doret to Switzerland!). So much for the validity of in country tests in Africa over the years in so far as the lab where they were sent has been de-certified now by WADA.

bigtool05 wrote:

Recordbook wrote:

I know this has been debated to death on dozens of threads but Renato sometimes (mainly when it is convenient for his theories) speaks of HCt and Hb levels as if an athletes blood volume is fixed.

The Hct and Hb tests use a fixed and very small amount of drawn blood to determine hematoctrit percentage and hemoglobin count from the 10 ml or so of blood that is drawn. What a normal blood test can't do is determine the total blood volume of an athlete. That is why Olympic cross-country skiers in the early 2000s used plasma-increasing drugs and transfusions to rebalance Hematocrit percentage back below 50%.

No one is arguing that runners could rely on EPO to obtain elite level performances without serious training. In fact, it stands to reason that EPO doping without endurance training would be dangerous and counterproductive as blood would get thick and hard to pump. However, as Renato mentions, one of the primary effects of endurance training is an increase in blood plasma volume. Couple good training with smart EPO micro-dosing and you get runners with slight boosts in Hct/ Hb counts while still getting significant but not incriminating performance boosts.

The argument that elite runners would not benefit from EPO use beause they have already maximized their usable amount of red blood cells is both biologically unlikely and counter to available results. The fastest climb of Alp de Huex still belongs to Pantini, Mr. 60% himself. In track, the 1500, 3000, 5000, 10000 meter world records were all achieved well prior to the ABP and most done before any sort of EPO test was available at all.

At a certain point, Ochahm's Razor comes into play and the simplest explanation becomes the only plausible explanation. Consider the following summation.

In 1992 the 5k WR was 12:58 and the 10K WR was 27:08. Both were achieved on modern surfaces by highly professional, well-paid and well trained athletes with high-altitude backgrounds.

Then a drug called EPO becomes available. At the same time, elite performances in two well-established sports, track and cycling, drastically improve. In the space of six years a flood of runners break the old 5k and 10k WRs and by 1998, just six years later the 5k WR is 19 seconds faster at 12:39 and the 10K WR is 48 seconds faster at 26:20! If we were to take the 1992 5k and 10k records in reverse those same amounts we would have to go nearly 25 years back to Ron Clarke circa 1966 during the introduction of synthetic tracks.

Then, a test for the EPO is introduced circa 2001. The test is not perfect and is best at detecting blatant recent use rather than low-level micro dosing. Still, the cascade of falling WRs slows to a trickle with only minor improvements in the 5k and 10k. In 2009 an athletic blood profile testing program is implemented that, when enforced, is designed to detect doping of various sorts by comparing changes in athlete's biological markers in addition to direct tests for banned drugs.

After the ABP is introduced in 2009, no one, not even the WR holder himself who was only in his late 20s in 2009, has come within 20 secs of the 10k world record or within 8 seconds of the 5K WR.

What should we conclude from this? The simplest answer is that the drug, EPO, improves endurance performance, including the performances of the best, most well trained athletes in the world. Is it possible that something else or a combination of factors could explain the phenomena that has in fact happened in track and cycling from 1990 through today?

Yes, it is possible.

But EPO does exist, it does boost red blood cell counts, the performance improvements did occur, the improved EPO and ABP tests were introduced, and sub 12:45 5ks and sub 26:40 10ks have disappeared from the realm of possibility after the introduction of the ABP.

So I have a question for the Renatos of the world.

What is the elite training that HG and Daniel Komen and Paula Radcliffe and Keninese Bekele were doing between 1995 and 2008 that Henry Rono and Said Auoita and Mirtus Yifter were not doing in the 1980s and that Caleb Ndiku and Mo Farah and Keninese Bekele and Jemima Sumgong are not doing now?

If someone can credibly answer that question then we can stop arguing about blood values and the like.

Really, really dumb argument. The 800 and 1500 are as fast or faster than they were during the epo era, and the marathon is 1000x faster. Unless you have evidence that epo helps the 5k and 10k more than the 800, 1500, or marathon then I'd shut up.

Renato Canova wrote:

In the history of methodology we can see several eras , characterized by differences in the training philosophy and in the choice of the most important workouts for that period. In some of these periods, there was also some history of doping, since always the athletes tried to find some pharmac able to help the body to become stronger, faster, and more resistant.

Also if the modern methodology is based on more scientific data and ideas, in some case what was the “basic and natural training” still can be considered the “main dish” of the preparation.

We can’t say, for example, that the modern training methodology for 400m changed the history of the event, when 56 years ago, during the OG in Rome, running on a dirty track, with 4 different rounds and without resting days, two athletes (Karl Kaufmann of West Germany and Otis Davis of US) arriving with the same time (44”9) who is still valid for reaching the final in every top championship.

We can’t also say the modern preparation for Long Jump can give advantages to the athletes, if (apart Beamon in Mexico City) in 1960 Ralph Boston won with 8.12 on a board of earth, and with the same performance could win the bronze medal in OG 2012 in London.

Looking at the endurance events, we can say that shorter the event, less room of improvement finding something new in training. But, for longer events, we can say very consistant improvements, and this fact is due to three factors :

a) Change of training

b) Change of mentality

c) Change of organization in the races

About training, we can identify some fundamental period, when some coach put something different from other coaches in his training :

a) The interval – training, invented by the German Coach and Doctor Gerschel and Reindel in the late 1930, based on the work of the heart

b) The Fartlek, developed by Swedish and Finnish, that means “running game”

c) The period of long and easy run, based on the concept of “capillarization”, following Van Aaken

d) The period of Marathon Training (1955-1970), from Percy Cerutty and Arthur Lydiard

e) The period of development of mileage (1970-80), with peaks of more than 200 miles per week

f) The period of high intensity and medium mileage (1980-1990), using also for longer distances repetitions with very short recovery

g) The period of high intensity with high mileage and the use of long repetitions on track (1990-2010), system developed with top African runners

h) At the same time, in Europe and America, the period with high intensity and drastic reduction of mileage (when we were no more able to produce any good runner, and in Europe we are still paying this mentality)

i) Now, the period of high mileage with frequent long and fast runs, that is the reason of the improvement in Marathon-

About mentality, we can say that, when some athlete is able to go under some mythical barrier (for example, 4’ for mile, 3’30” for 1500m, 13’ and 27’ for 5000 and 10000, 1 hour in HM and 2:05’ in full marathon), it’s easier for the other to have a different vision about the personal limits. This is directly connected with the third factor :

Different organization of the races, during the period 1995-2005 on the track, now on road races (specifically the use of pacers, previously not allowed, in order to try records or top performances).

What we can do in training different from the past ?

1) We use now, with African runners, long intervals on track at high intensity (for example, 4 times 3000m in 8’10” running during the recovery 6 times 60m sprint uphill at max speed), and fast long continuous run very fast (from 8 to 15 km when preparing 10000m, from 25 to 35 km when preparing Marathon) that 30 years ago nobody used.

2) We use high volume of specific intensity, with different percentage of “specific mileage” compared with the past, when the percentage of easy run was very much higher, and the percentage of “specific long fast run” was very much lower

So, there are big differences between the training of the athletes of today, and the training of the athletes of 30 years ago, but of course, if some coach continues to use the same old system, there is no reason because the performances of the athletes can improve from the past.

We can say that the big changes were in longest distances, and the last changes in Marathon only. Nothing really changed in the preparation for track events after 2005, and in this case we can say that the main reason is the migration of the most part of talented athletes of endurance from track to road races, and at the same time the reduction of competitions of high level on track (10000m practically disappeared, 5000m in the DL only more, and globally 28 meetings cancelled in Europe during the last 3 years).

Here, you can see the improvement of WR every 10 years, starting from 1970, and the percentage of improvement :

800m 1500m 5000m 10000m

1970 : ………….1’44”3…………………………….3’33”1…………………………13’16”6…………………… 27’39”4

1980 : 1’42”4 (-1”9=1.82%)….3’31”36 (1”74=0.81%)…13’08”4 (8”2=1%)……………..27’22”5 (16”9=1.02%)

1990 : 1’41”73 (0”67=0.65%)…3’29”46 (1”90=0.90%)..12’58”39 (10”01=1,27%)….27’08”23 (14”27=0.87%)

2000 : 1’41”11 (0”62=0.61%)…3’26”00 (3”46=1.68%)..12’39”36 (20”03=2.57%)….26’22”75 (45”48=2.79%)

2010 : 1’40”92 (0”19=0.19%)…3’26”00 (-------)………….12’37”35 (2”11=0.28%)…….26’17”53(5”22=0.33%)

2015 : 1’40”92 (-----)…………….3’26”00 (-------)…………. 12’37”35 (---------)…………….26’17”35 (---------)

1970 : ………………8’21”98…………………………………..1:03’53”…………………………2:09’29”

1980 : 8’05”4 (16”6 = 3.30%)……………1:02’16” (1’37” = 2.53%)………….2:09’01” (28” = 0.36%)

1990 : 8’05”35 (0”05 = 0.01%)………….1:00’55” (1’21” = 2.17%)…………2:06’50” (2’11” = 1.69%)

2000 : 7’55”72 (9”63 = 1.98%)……………..59’17” (1’38” = 2.68%)………..2:05’42” (1’08” = 0.89%)

2010 : 7’53”63 (2”09 = 0.44%)…………….58’23” (54” = 1.52%)………….2:03’59” (1’43” = 1.36%)

2015 : 7’53”63 (----------)……………………..58’23” (--------------)……………2:02’57” (1’02” = 0.83%)

I let everybody interpret these numbers, but one thing it’s clear : the improvement in longer distances is very much more deep than in shorter distances, and this because the possibility to change something in training is more available in the sector of long endurance than in the sector of middle distances.

If we look at the total improvement in the full period of 45 years, we have the following data :

800m (from 1’44”3 to 1’40”91) - improvement of 3”39 (3.25%)

1500m (from 3’33”1 to 3’26”00) - improvement of 7”10 (3.33%)

5000m (from 13’16”6 to 12’37”35) - improvement of 39”25 (4.28%)

10000m (from 27’39”4 to 26’17”53) - improvement of 1’21”87 (4.93%)

Steeple (from 8’21”98 to 7’53”63) - improvement of 28”35 (5.65%)

HM (from 1:03’53” to 58’23”) - improvement of 5’30” (8.61%)

Marathon (from 2:09’29” to 2:02’57”) - improvement of 6’32” (5.04%)

If we don’t consider HM (event that found the opportunity to be frequently organized only after 2000), we can see that the percentage of improvement in marathon is not very different from the improvement in 10000, while 800m and 1500m are similar as trend. The difference is that the most part of improvement for 800 and 1500m happened before 2000, while for marathon the last years are the most prolific.